Current theories used to explain intimate partner violence (IPV) in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and transsexual (LGBT) relationships have difficulty accounting for this violence because of the underlying feminist definitions of violence, and heterosexual paradigm that has propelled much of the movement; both of which influence data collection. Researchers conduct interviews or ethnographies; but do so with small, unrepresentative samples. While small samples are not always problematic, many have made unwarranted conclusions from these data (Craft & Serovich 2005; McClennen, Summers, and Vaughan 2002). Additionally, larger, nationally representative surveys fail to question, and thus explain, all myriad types of violence; and also often disregard or inadequately operationalize sexual orientation.

In this first step of my dissertation, I review all of the smaller, empirical studies on intimate partner violence in LGBT relationships and all of the larger, nationally representative surveys that included, at least in part, sections on violence in LGBT relationships, detailing important steps that must be taken for future research. I also detail the quantitative analysis I am currently conducting on two large surveys, one commonly referenced (“Violence and Threats of Violence Against Men and Women in the U.S., 1994-1996”), and one that is the most current data available on violence in LGBT relationships (“California Health Interview Survey, 2007”), which I hope will serve as an important contribution and stepping stone to future research in the field.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished ManuscriptReview Method: Peer ReviewedAbstract: Current theories used to explain intimate partner violence (IPV) in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and transsexual (LGBT) relationships have difficulty accounting for this violence because of the underlying feminist definitions of violence, and heterosexual paradigm that has propelled much of the movement; both of which influence data collection. Researchers conduct interviews or ethnographies; but do so with small, unrepresentative samples. While small samples are not always problematic, many have made unwarranted conclusions from these data (Craft & Serovich 2005; McClennen, Summers, and Vaughan 2002). Additionally, larger, nationally representative surveys fail to question, and thus explain, all myriad types of violence; and also often disregard or inadequately operationalize sexual orientation.

In this first step of my dissertation, I review all of the smaller, empirical studies on intimate partner violence in LGBT relationships and all of the larger, nationally representative surveys that included, at least in part, sections on violence in LGBT relationships, detailing important steps that must be taken for future research. I also detail the quantitative analysis I am currently conducting on two large surveys, one commonly referenced (“Violence and Threats of Violence Against Men and Women in the U.S., 1994-1996”), and one that is the most current data available on violence in LGBT relationships (“California Health Interview Survey, 2007”), which I hope will serve as an important contribution and stepping stone to future research in the field.